The Language of Vampyr

a reply to: Kantzveldt

I barely know how to respond.

I am not a master of all mythology, not even close.

Frankly i find the Semitic mythology extremely
abhorrent, as it's this supporting mythology which
supported the grand slaughter of much which
was beautiful in the world; it was also quite
derivative, so I would rather study what came
before.. but i suppose i miss 'clues' with that
attitude.

I was of the opinion that Phobos and Demos
were scarcely visible from the surface of Mars?

When it comes to numbers and 'deities' one
can spin that so many ways..

In the early Neolithic, there was no need to name
'everything' - it was as obvious as the nose on
one's face.

I suspect that during that time, there was something
akin to non-specialization of certain brain centers
that are now specialized.. as that was the era of
'the garden of eden' so to speak.

Now, with the growth of human Ego, there was indeed
an increase in chopping up things into mythology..
until the One became the many.

Frankly I think these ladies of FL take themselves
far too seriously.

Kev

a reply to: tetra50

Yes a crazy suggestion at face value, looking at it though in terms of a secondary aspect to lunar symbolism in terms of an extension of the power of Nanna through his son that defines the leadership principle and means of control though language can be sort of made to made sense, maybe i'm overly generous though in my estimation of their understanding and they are just crazy

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

It's true that you would be talking here in terms of how a later culture, the Hebrews, interpreted aspects of an earlier culture, the Sumerians, and as considered they may have looked at things in a whole different way than was earlier intended, end result a secondary aspect of a Sumerian Moon God plotting to control the world...

originally posted by: tetra50
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Respectfully, WHAT is the mythlogical control system talking? That we were meant for more than sustenance for others?

Direne is an FL member who posted on this thread.

I sincerely hope that my life, your life, and many others I've the privelege to know amount to more than being food for each other. I don't mind dying. I mind the suffering.
tet

Our brains are imprinted with an ancient, cumulative dose of
mythology.

Now, the question is, whether that's purely accidental, or
whether it was carefully controlled, or the truth is
something in-between.

This 'fact' (a lot of people would call it that) can be
thought of in purely physical terms, and it can also
be thought of in other more interesting terms.

In fact one might wonder if humans were in a permanent
state of symbiosis with something that dumbs them down
and cripples them.

But one must be careful with this type of thinking, as for
example, the very concepts of 'good' and 'evil' are two
of the primary control rods which keep the cattle
so distracted and frittering away their time on nothing.

As for suffering, I concur; i don't care for it.

Now as to finding meaning in life, that is the responsibility
of each of us, and there is no one size fits all.. no cosmic
'gimmick' to ensure we all find it.

Are there wonders? Well I think so.

I'm just wondering what to do with what i have right now..

As for 'Direne' I'll have to read this thread then.. I haven't
in more than a year.

BTW, has anyone analyzed 'her' writing style to compare it
to known ATS members, to see if 'she' is just an ATS
member? Another 'hidden hand' thing? I really must
read this thread then.

Kev

a reply to: Kantzveldt

You are aware that the 'secondary female moon god'
has an analogue with the Hewbrew Shekinah, the
'little dirty secret' of the Abrahamic faiths?

I'll just come out and say it.. I'm quite certain that
a great majority of the FL folks are women, and
these women often cross-dress as men, and generally
pass as men. Which considering their culture is
quite the thing to do.

This in concert with the previous paragraph gives
me a queasy feeling.

Do you have any interesting commentary on my
interesting commentary?

Kev

originally posted by: tetra50

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
a reply to: tetra50

Tell me more.

Kev

I'd be happy to….about what, exactly?
tet

Anything you like.

Kev

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
a reply to: Kantzveldt
BTW, has anyone analyzed 'her' writing style to compare it
to known ATS members, to see if 'she' is just an ATS
member?

*raises hand*

and, no comment.

I'll just come out and say it.. I'm quite certain that
a great majority of the FL folks are women...

first, go review mr. ashe's timeline.

then, run any sample of fl's forum activity (here and elsewhere) through this.

if you like, you can even run cerda against andyryl using this.

knock yourself out, kev.

originally posted by: tetra50
Bolding mine. That's just the point, sir. It matters not whether it's weaponized or used for beneficial means. The point is, with no firewall to the mind, it can be used either way, without your choice, and then be "sold" as beneficial, as at that point, there is no way to tell what is YOUR mind, or what is being pumped into it.
The lie that it is for your benefit is then quite easily told….and believed, as separation then becomes impossible.
This makes it, by necessity, a weapon, regardless of how it is explained…

I made no attempt to change the categorization of the technology you talk about. Overall, I am against the weaponization of.. well, anything. However, knowing the reality that many have constructed, and how it impacts my own, I can see the need. Even then, I feel a superior path is to, at most, design applications that do not harm even if they temporarily disable.

To be clear, what you speak of would be considered a weaponized platform and wholly unacceptable. However, the same concepts in a different platform could potentially heal. Likewise, any platform that heals could be designed in a different way to harm. It is our responsibility, as a species, to not only choose wisely but also design platforms that enable those who choose to grow (I.e. open source).

This isn't some kind of new technology, like a medical one, to save a patient from disease. This is your MIND. And the lack of boundary involved means it can be spelled either way….. There is absolutely no "liberation" possible when it involves something applied that there is no proitection from. I find your terminology here, sadly, laughable, and in fact, what will usher in our "total annihilation."

Well, I am sorry that you find my perspective laughable, and see fit to act so harshly.

The post you replied to was referencing the piezoelectric effect, something which I have personally found incredibly useful.

Regardless of the specifics though, the concepts of the technology can be used in a myriad of ways. Those different platforms can either be destructive or constructive (or somewhere on the spectrum). The science and concepts behind a controlled explosion can either be used to explore the stars or decimate a city.

You see an "anti language," pumped into a mind at a particular hz as PROGRESS? The seeking of what? Total and complete mind meld and control? What progress is to be had with that?

I think you misunderstand. If the platform is as described by you, such weaponization goes against my principles. And though I may not be convinced that the description fits FL, it is certainly possible your assertions are spot on, as well as your disapproval.

However, what you talk about refers to the "negative implications" that I mentioned and I truly do believe such pursuits will lead to our annihilation.

But! The "physics" behind it all, the stuff beyond us, can be used differently. Its up to us how we bring it into our culture and society, our reality. I believe the true weight of this responsibility has yet to be understood. But as our technology advances further, it will grow more and more undeniable. In those events, like in the rest of our lives, we will choose construction or destruction.. and maybe not for the first time on this planet.

i guess it's about time to turn the lazer-eyes on this cluster# again, and a belated thanks to herbert ashe for an mvp performance.

earliest activity from fl goes something like this.

"we are a secret group."

so secret that they maintain a public website, and openly declare on several forums their mission statement, their objective, and their structure, even going so far as giving a vague outline of their methodology.

way super top secret, bro.

so the first lie (secrecy) is the also the biggest, and the biggest draw for the reading audience.

so, why is this # publicly indexed? because they need input from the public. natch.

so much for that.

"we are making an anti-language, but even though we are top-flight linguists, we can't give you a definition of that word."

which leaves folks to fill in the blanks. it's hard to resist the idea that people filling in the blanks is a prime part of their game plan. their whole schtick is an exercise in breaking down meaning, but we have no evidence that it has anything to do with software, and plenty of evidence to indicate that it has a lot to do with buttloads of logical fallacies dressed up in people's pet topics.

so the mission statement and the objective are also both lies.

"we are not for profit."

the group is chock full of academics with state connections, one of whom is still settling a suit for tampering with the historical record to support all that ancient aliens dog#. well, that and embezzlement. but zero profit motive, guys. ya, ok.

we had a little taste of how the structure operates from defectors. circles within circles reinforced with cryptographic levels, and free labor from people in the outer ring who think they're part of a rebel collective. high turnover for the fresh meat. can't keep em around too long, or they might wise up.

as for the methodology, it's apparently all kiddie-script simple music/language software based.

apparently.

a reply to: ATODASO

Anything is possible I suppose.

But it doesn't hurt to keep THIS in mind.

By the way.. after I posted my couple strange
things, I for the very first time ever went to
their website, and noticed that their website
was designed in Iraq.

Which gave me confirmation that my source of
information was at least mostly on track. Frankly
I was a bit astonished.

But that's all I'm saying at this point.

Kev

I'm just hop skip and jumping through the many
pages. I saw this:

"pre-lexical retrieval (identifying the words you are going to say just before you speak them out)."

Doesn't that creep people out?

Just that one sentence speaks huge volumes.

Kev

originally posted by: Bybyots
What amazed us all at the beginning of trying to understand FL seemed to be this idea of a language that can be developed that can overcome communication breakdown (I'm not going to post it).

What we discovered from the onset of this beautiful mess of a thread, was that FL was exploring that strange place where languages collide and one or the other just throws in the towel in the face of total failure.

Does SA make any more sense in light of that?

I am still not sure. SA makes some sense, that is, I understand the process of what is trying to be achieved but I don't know whether I can agree with the idea in the context that you have applied above, and other than in cryptography, both as a means to communicate and to hinder communication, I do not really appreciate how it could be applied to "communication breakdown" other than if that breakdown is mechanistic. And, other than in defensive scenarios, the commercial applications of an "anti-language", with or without annealing, seem limited...from my perspective.

If they are attempting to study the places where languages collide, and how language is assimilated or delineated, then I can only suppose that they are under some misconception about the difference in verbalised and non-verbalised language in application to written or they would not be looking where they are looking, but then they may only appear to be looking there. Who knows? That whole side of it, doesn't hold a great deal of water, linguistically or methodologically...other than at a completely mechanistic level, again.

I'm not technologically savvy, organic things I am pretty good with though, what they are doing, whatever it is that they are doing, is not organic. That's about the best way that I can sum that up.

originally posted by: Bybyots
The SA metaheuristic teaches itself to develop and then refer to it's own internal global optimum for solutions.

Again, I don't know...

...but one thing that seems interesting to me about SA is that it can become "greedy". If it finds feedback that keeps telling it that it is "right" it stops searching as hard for "rightness" until it eventually gets stuck.

Pretty good analogy for the problems that the Giselians must be facing, I am thinking.

But I dunno.

I have been reading about the developments and application in biometric identification software, it got a good write up in the New Scientist, I haven't been digging too deep, just what is getting publicity largely because it is being placed on the open market. There is a package being touted by Wynyard that claims to be able to map the activity of potential "foreign fighters" before they pop off to Syria to join ISIS. "It is designed to expose and disrupt connections between foreign fighters, recruiters and those they are targeting, says the company" (NS 27/6/15 p18-19, Anti-recruitment drive). That would be anti-communication, not anti-language, of course. The Quilliam Foundation points out "That it doesn't challenge why people want to go...I am quick to caution that we shouldn't drop other, counter narrative based strategies." As you know, DARPA for one, agrees.

Alongside that, annealing of narratives? Developing a robust, adaptable, meta- or grand-narrative would be very useful. I should imagine.

The greediness is another thing...still fermenting.

originally posted by: Anaana

originally posted by: Bybyots
The SA metaheuristic teaches itself to develop and then refer to it's own internal global optimum for solutions.

Again, I don't know...

...but one thing that seems interesting to me about SA is that it can become "greedy". If it finds feedback that keeps telling it that it is "right" it stops searching as hard for "rightness" until it eventually gets stuck.

Pretty good analogy for the problems that the Giselians must be facing, I am thinking.

But I dunno.

I have been reading about the developments and application in biometric identification software, it got a good write up in the New Scientist, I haven't been digging too deep, just what is getting publicity largely because it is being placed on the open market. There is a package being touted by Wynyard that claims to be able to map the activity of potential "foreign fighters" before they pop off to Syria to join ISIS. "It is designed to expose and disrupt connections between foreign fighters, recruiters and those they are targeting, says the company" (NS 27/6/15 p18-19, Anti-recruitment drive). That would be anti-communication, not anti-language, of course. The Quilliam Foundation points out "That it doesn't challenge why people want to go...I am quick to caution that we shouldn't drop other, counter narrative based strategies." As you know, DARPA for one, agrees.

Alongside that, annealing of narratives? Developing a robust, adaptable, meta- or grand-narrative would be very useful. I should imagine.

The greediness is another thing...still fermenting.

For several years I have been trying to "understand" what your are talking aboutand stuff. But I would like to introduce a new insight:
Halocracy

originally posted by: Kratos40

originally posted by: Anaana

originally posted by: Bybyots
The SA metaheuristic teaches itself to develop and then refer to it's own internal global optimum for solutions.

Again, I don't know...

...but one thing that seems interesting to me about SA is that it can become "greedy". If it finds feedback that keeps telling it that it is "right" it stops searching as hard for "rightness" until it eventually gets stuck.

Pretty good analogy for the problems that the Giselians must be facing, I am thinking.

But I dunno.

I have been reading about the developments and application in biometric identification software, it got a good write up in the New Scientist, I haven't been digging too deep, just what is getting publicity largely because it is being placed on the open market. There is a package being touted by Wynyard that claims to be able to map the activity of potential "foreign fighters" before they pop off to Syria to join ISIS. "It is designed to expose and disrupt connections between foreign fighters, recruiters and those they are targeting, says the company" (NS 27/6/15 p18-19, Anti-recruitment drive). That would be anti-communication, not anti-language, of course. The Quilliam Foundation points out "That it doesn't challenge why people want to go...I am quick to caution that we shouldn't drop other, counter narrative based strategies." As you know, DARPA for one, agrees.

Alongside that, annealing of narratives? Developing a robust, adaptable, meta- or grand-narrative would be very useful. I should imagine.

The greediness is another thing...still fermenting.

For several years I have been trying to "understand" what your are talking aboutand stuff. But I would like to introduce a new insight:
Halocracy

Me specifically?

Halocracy? I did a Google, came up Holocracy, which seems interesting, but not Halocracy which implies something else entirely. Care to expand on that? Master Chief or the angelically inclined?

a reply to: Anaana

Hi Anaana,

I thought that I would link you to the post from Andryl that set me to trying to figure out the SA thing.

Here's the culprit...

Hmm... but the idea was not to generate a cryptic language of some sort. The idea was this:

To analyze syntactic and morphological drift for a given set of languages, and to explore whether such a drift produces a semantic drift correlate.

In order to do so, we designed a software, called Nodespaces, that acts as a genetic algorithm that takes as input a given language and then, by stimulated annealing, subjects the language to a set of stochastic rules. If we consider the language as a complex adaptive system, by changing the boundary conditions the language is forced to adapt itself, thus changing its syntactic structure and its morphological internal structure.

Obviously, a boundary condition was this: change as you wish, but the change must yield a syntactically and phonetically coherent language. The result shows that language is also a dissipative structure, one that can finally derive in a total colapse of communication, unless you impose some restrictive superstructure upon it. We found it was then better to introduce the self-organizing constraints into the system.

And the experiment shows that in order for you to obtain such a language, the system must, of necessity, include the speaker.

-"Andryl"



lingvoforum.net...

originally posted by: Anaana

originally posted by: Kratos40

originally posted by: Anaana

originally posted by: Bybyots
The SA metaheuristic teaches itself to develop and then refer to it's own internal global optimum for solutions.

Again, I don't know...

...but one thing that seems interesting to me about SA is that it can become "greedy". If it finds feedback that keeps telling it that it is "right" it stops searching as hard for "rightness" until it eventually gets stuck.

This is on point. Halocracy in the workplace. Your are not a supervisor or a regular employee. We decide on a problem.
good wishes Emperor

Pretty good analogy for the problems that the Giselians must be facing, I am thinking.

But I dunno.

I have been reading about the developments and application in biometric identification software, it got a good write up in the New Scientist, I haven't been digging too deep, just what is getting publicity largely because it is being placed on the open market. There is a package being touted by Wynyard that claims to be able to map the activity of potential "foreign fighters" before they pop off to Syria to join ISIS. "It is designed to expose and disrupt connections between foreign fighters, recruiters and those they are targeting, says the company" (NS 27/6/15 p18-19, Anti-recruitment drive). That would be anti-communication, not anti-language, of course. The Quilliam Foundation points out "That it doesn't challenge why people want to go...I am quick to caution that we shouldn't drop other, counter narrative based strategies." As you know, DARPA for one, agrees.

Alongside that, annealing of narratives? Developing a robust, adaptable, meta- or grand-narrative would be very useful. I should imagine.

The greediness is another thing...still fermenting.

For several years I have been trying to "understand" what your are talking aboutand stuff. But I would like to introduce a new insight:
Halocracy

Me specifically?

Halocracy? I did a Google, came up Holocracy, which seems interesting, but not Halocracy which implies something else entirely. Care to expand on that? Master Chief or the angelically inclined?

originally posted by: ATODASO

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
a reply to: Kantzveldt
BTW, has anyone analyzed 'her' writing style to compare it
to known ATS members, to see if 'she' is just an ATS
member?

*raises hand*

and, no comment.

I'll just come out and say it.. I'm quite certain that
a great majority of the FL folks are women...

first, go review mr. ashe's timeline.

then, run any sample of fl's forum activity (here and elsewhere) through this.

if you like, you can even run cerda against andyryl using this.

knock yourself out, kev.

Interesting and although you summed many things nicely, it seems you marginalized a few aspects. I agree wholeheartedly though, why be indexed on the web if you're a nonprofit, invite only group who's mission statement is to NOT be understood.

I'll also add that anytime I've ever seen some arbitrary countdown clock it was me playing Nintendo or some viral marketing ploy, like that lip balm one here a year or so ago. All that being said, I fail to understand a business plan that pours money into a viral campaign for years, one incidentally that is by and large unintelligible.

So they have state connections (not at all surprising) and you state one is in a lawsuit. You seem to indicate one has to do with the other but I don't see the marketing flow or money movement. Maybe I'm totally misunderstanding. Care to expand further? Please and thanks.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

The Sumerians of course didn't have a female Moon God but rather what they had was the consort or Feminine counterpart to Nanna in Ningal and as i looked at the other day she as Goddess of reeds was associated with the mystical divide between the mundane and the Divine.

Being a child of Nanna and Ningal didn't necessarily make one a Moon God as both Inanna and Utu are such, Venus and the Sun respectively, but in the case of Ningublam he does seem to have such concerns with the cattle of Nanna, which relate to the diameters and radii of the Earth and the Moon in numerology terms as i looked at here, these also relate to the mysteries of Pi as the Holy Grail of the mathematics of the circle, the cup of Divination of Joseph in Hebrew tradition.

What the children of Nanna and Ningal did have in common was the tendency toward occultation and periodic entering into and emerging from the Underworld, but there was balance achieved through specialization and they were generally entertaining.

originally posted by: Rosinitiate

So they have state connections (not at all surprising) and you state one is in a lawsuit. You seem to indicate one has to do with the other but I don't see the marketing flow or money movement. Maybe I'm totally misunderstanding. Care to expand further? Please and thanks.

sure thing, bud.

cerdan's activities at iruña-veleia (fraud, embezzlement) establish a record for shadiness and greed. and here he is, still plugging ancient aliens and ooparts. if one looks at the corporate and state entities that have poured capital into the aa sludge fund in the past, one can take a pretty good guess as to who is doing it now.

originally posted by: Anaana

Alongside that, annealing of narratives? Developing a robust, adaptable, meta- or grand-narrative would be very useful. I should imagine.

and that's why they need public input.